The second formulation is the constitutive claim, which says that it introspectively seems to one that the perceived mind-independent objects (and their features) are constituents of the experiential state. Nudds, for instance, argues that ‘visual experiences seem to have the NR [Naïve Realist] property’ (2009, p. 335), which he defines as ‘the property of having some mind-independent object or feature as a constituent’ (2009, p. 334), and, more explicitly, that ‘our experience […] seems to have mind-independent objects and features as constituents’ (2013, p. 271). Martin claims that ‘when one introspects one’s veridical perception one recognises that this is a situation in which some mind-independent object is present and is a constituent of the experiential episode’ (2004, p. 65). — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-021-01618-z
the conscious “phenomenal” character of that experience is shaped by the objects of perception and their features, where this is understood in a constitutive, rather than merely a causal, sense. — https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0340.xml
colours are mind-independent properties of things in the environment that are distinct from properties identified by the physical sciences — https://academic.oup.com/book/5610
How is it an inference, then, and not a sentiment, or a mere prejudice? — Banno
Ah. SO you induce the existence of the world by application of "scientific method"?
SO does this method involve falsification, or is it statistical? — Banno
And you deduce, or perhaps infer, the existence of the world, including the things around you, from what the senses present to you?
How does that work? — Banno
Do you agree that sensory experience provides us with knowledge of the things around us? — Banno
Again, this is a bad question. — Banno
You can call it a merely grammatical dispute if you like, but then you must be in agreement with me that our perceptions are mental representations, that our perceptions of the world do not require any mediation, and that we can have direct perceptions of the world.
But I don’t see how this is consistent with the indirect realist position that our perceptions are directly of mental representations and only indirectly of the world; that is, that our perceptions of the world are mediated by mental representations. — Luke
Not all direct realists hold that color is a mind-independent property of distal objects. — creativesoul
what is "the epistemological problem of perception" — Banno
Back on page one I said: "This argument is interminable because folk fail to think about how they are using 'direct' and 'indirect'." — Banno
So to avoid using the terms "direct" and "indirect", my own take is that we have an experience that we describe as seeing an apple, but that the relationship between the experience and the apple isn't of a kind that resolves the epistemological problem of perception (or of a kind that satisfies naive colour realism, as an example). — Michael
The science is accepted by both "sides". You still haven't come to terms with that simple fact. — Banno
Undefined by the description. That is to say, the color of the box afterwards is not a defined thing, which is different than it displaying the color of 'undefined'. — noAxioms
Says the guy who has spent weeks asserting that direct realism is false because it denies indirect realism. — Banno
there are no seconds unless measured out — Metaphysician Undercover
Odd that all that color matching can be successfully achieved by a brainless machine. — creativesoul
If the cow is in the field, then it is not in the brain. If we see the cow, then we see things that are not in the brain. The cow is one of the things we see.
What scientific account of ocular nature forbids us from seeing cows in fields? — creativesoul
What scientific account of ocular nature forbids seeing things that are not in the brain? — creativesoul
I do not see how scientific evidence refutes 2. The emphasized part needs unpacked. — creativesoul
Naïve realism is a theory in the philosophy of perception: primarily, the philosophy of vision. Historically, the term was used to name a variant of “direct realism,” which claimed (1) that everyday material objects, such as caterpillars and cadillacs, have mind-independent existence (the “realism” part); (2) that our visual perception of these material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part); and (3) these objects possess all the features that we perceive them to have (the “naïve” part). In this, the theory contrasted with theories such as scientific direct realism (which rejected (3)), indirect realism (which rejected (2) and (3)), and phenomenalism, which rejected (1). Today, however, most philosophical theories of visual perception would endorse at least claims (1) and (2), and many would also endorse (3). In this setting, “naïve realism” has taken on a more precise use. As understood today, the naïve realist claims that, when we successfully see a tomato, that tomato is literally a constituent of that experience, such that an experience of that fundamental kind could not have occurred in the absence of that object. As naïve realism, thus understood, sees perception as fundamentally involving a relation between subjects and their environments, the position is also sometimes known as “relationalism” in the contemporary literature. Typically, today’s naïve realist will also claim that the conscious “phenomenal” character of that experience is shaped by the objects of perception and their features, where this is understood in a constitutive, rather than merely a causal, sense. On such a view, the redness that I am aware of when I look at a ripe tomato is a matter of my experience acquainting me with the tomato’s color: the redness that I am aware of in this experience just is the redness of the tomato. As such a view appears to commit its proponent to a version of claim (3) above—that for one to see an object to have a feature, the object must actually have that feature—the inheritance of the name “naïve” realism seems appropriate. As for whether there can be naïve realist theories of senses other than vision, this is an issue that awaits a more detailed exploration.
I meant better options than just indirect realism(indirect perception) as compared/contrasted to naive realism. There are more choices than just indirect realism that presuppose all components of all experience is/are located in the brain. — creativesoul
I think that there are better options... — creativesoul
If "the cow I see isn't a constituent of my visual experience" makes sense according to the position you're arguing for/from, but you cannot clearly and unambiguously state what does count as a constituent of seeing cows if not the cow you see, then that is not a problem with the question. It's evidence that there's a problem with the framework you're practicing. — creativesoul
What counts as a constituent of seeing cows if not the cow you see? — creativesoul
In this view, mental representations are seen as immediate reflections of the external world rather than intermediaries that stand between the mind and reality. — Luke
If you truly believe that an increment of time exists without being measured, tell me how I can find a naturally existing, already individuated increment of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Increments of time must be measured — Metaphysician Undercover
The contradiction is very obvious. I'm surprised you persist in denial. The supertask will necessarily carry on forever, as the sum of the time increments approaches 60 seconds, without 60 seconds ever passing. Clearly this contradicts "60 seconds will pass". — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry, what? You don't believe that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1? You don't believe in calculus? You are arguing a finitist or ultrafinitist position? What do you mean?
Of course if you mean real world events, I quite agree. But your three-state lamp is not a real world event, it violates several laws of classical and quantum physics, just as Thompson's two-state lamp does. — fishfry
So if you wish to define a final state, you can make it anything you like. I choose pumpkin. — fishfry